Kamala Mills Fire case: ‘1Above was asked to remove the roof, a week before the fire’ | mumbai news | Hindustan Times
Today in New Delhi, India
Apr 24, 2018-Tuesday
-°C
New Delhi
  • Humidity
    -
  • Wind
    -

Kamala Mills Fire case: ‘1Above was asked to remove the roof, a week before the fire’

The charge sheet claimed the department had asked Patil to visit and inspect the premises

mumbai Updated: Mar 02, 2018 23:55 IST
Charul Shah
The charge sheet claimed the department had asked Patil to visit and inspect the premises.
The charge sheet claimed the department had asked Patil to visit and inspect the premises.(FILE)

A week before a fire gutted two restaurants in Kamala Mills compound killing 14 people, the fire department had asked the owners of one of them to remove the roof and keep the terrace open.

The Mumbai police, in their charge sheet filed in connection with the December 29 incident, attached a report and NOC of the fire department signed by Rajendra Patil, one of the accused and station house fire officer. The NOC was given to restaurant on November 23, 2017.

The charge sheet claimed the department had asked Patil to visit and inspect the premises. Patil had, in his report, mentioned the NOC can be given subject to compliance of some conditions. He had asked the owners of 1Above restaurants not to cover the roof of the wooden seating area with any combustible material. However, the roof was already covered with tarpaulin. Patil had, in his inspection report, mentioned there were two fire extinguishers provided by the restaurants, but the investigation after the incident revealed there were none.

The police added charges of forgery and cheating against the owners of the restaurant and booked Patil for issuance of false certificate.

The agency claimed owners of restaurant 1Above had obtained permission for business under the category of open rooftop. However, the terrace where the rooftop restaurant was proposed was covered for protection from rain. The police, in the charge sheet, claimed Patil gave an NOC even when the roof was covered. The investigators said Patil had failed to inspect the premises and gave an NOC without inspection.

However, the police have not filed a charge sheet against Patil for want of prosecution sanction.